Because Everyone keeps bringing it up: The # of Lasgun Shots Needed to Kill One Knight

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

On 1/27/2023 at 4:14 AM, Cleon said:

I really don't like the relatively recent (Eldar is the first time I noticed it) wave of 'on a six next roll passes' rules like in this discussion born soldiers. It feels innately unfair for some factions who pay and rely on toughness to have their defence bypassed (would have needed a 5 or 6) by the same rule that would also auto wound a weak model.

 

I'd love to change all of them to either a +1 to wound (maybe make if you were already 2+ automatic) or a re-roll, I'm sure that makes a massive difference to the Knight calculation and to me that's a positive side effect of fixing how it plays for things like Death guard and Custodes (I only have sympathy for Custodes who use infantry,....), who don't have the body count to survive rules like that. 

 

I really don't like the special rules that trigger on six as well. I do think a roll of a 6 to hit should always hit and a roll of a 6 to wound should always wound but that's it. That said the skew lists make it hard to take those rules out. Hopefully we get a reset with a less is more philosophy on fraction rules, and they find some other solutions to make more balanced lists be able to interact with knights for example.

 

15 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

People don’t complain about MMs slagging things because they’re supposed to.

a lasgun is not supposed to hurt a baneblade or a knight at all 

 

I've complained about MM pretty much this entire edition. Adding a second shot to them was a horrible design decision and they've became probably the most spammed option this edition. 

 

I do agree with your second point from an immersion standpoint, but I also don't think either of those units should be in a game with 40k's scale (same for flyers). 

 

 

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 hours ago, Jorin Helm-splitter said:

 

I really don't like the special rules that trigger on six as well. I do think a roll of a 6 to hit should always hit and a roll of a 6 to wound should always wound but that's it. That said the skew lists make it hard to take those rules out. Hopefully we get a reset with a less is more philosophy on fraction rules, and they find some other solutions to make more balanced lists be able to interact with knights for example.

 

 

I've complained about MM pretty much this entire edition. Adding a second shot to them was a horrible design decision and they've became probably the most spammed option this edition. 

 

I do agree with your second point from an immersion standpoint, but I also don't think either of those units should be in a game with 40k's scale (same for flyers). 

 

 

 

 

A lasgun shouldn’t be capable of damaging a chimera let alone a Russ even.

 

I mean I have no problem with MMs having two shots.

they’re short range, which kinda offsets that and makes the melta rule hard to use. Now if the melta rule went away I wouldn’t complain about it.

[MegaVolt87]

OP is wrong in the sense of chip dmg as a good thing and that math to me just proves it. If I wiped all of your AT, first turn, we had a poor table with not enough terrain. If I wiped your AT, then yes I should be rewarded for that with you no longer having any sort of counter. It's getting a last few wounds off something like a knight with say lasguns that's bad and really stupid. It's no coincidence the last two editions have been infantry and Walker spam. Chip dmg from non AT guns is one of the problems with vehicles in 40k. 

 

[Reskin]

2 hours ago, MegaVolt87 said:

OP is wrong in the sense of chip dmg as a good thing and that math to me just proves it. If I wiped all of your AT, first turn, we had a poor table with not enough terrain. If I wiped your AT, then yes I should be rewarded for that with you no longer having any sort of counter. It's getting a last few wounds off something like a knight with say lasguns that's bad and really stupid. It's no coincidence the last two editions have been infantry and Walker spam. Chip dmg from non AT guns is one of the problems with vehicles in 40k. 

 

Finally someone with sense

[Noserenda]

Oh yeah a game where someone has to concede because they cant hurt your army sounds like great fun for everyone :D 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Noserenda said:

Oh yeah a game where someone has to concede because they cant hurt your army sounds like great fun for everyone :D 

Don’t recall it being an issue previously 

[MARK0SIAN]

11 hours ago, Noserenda said:

Oh yeah a game where someone has to concede because they cant hurt your army sounds like great fun for everyone :D 

To be fair, if you’re just left with lasguns against a knight army after an alpha strike against all your AT in turn one, then even under the current system it’s pretty much game over, even though you can technically hurt the knight. I know I’d concede at that point. Making it so those lasguns couldn’t hurt the knight wouldn’t really make any difference. 
 

My preference is for higher toughness units to be immune to damage from weak weapons. However, I don’t think it needs to be quite as punishing as the old system. I think there’s a compromise that might work.

 

S=(T+3 or more) wounds on 2s

S=(T+1 or 2) wounds on 3s

S=T wounds on 4s 

S=(T-1) wounds on 5s

S=(T-2 or less)* wounds on 6s

S=(T/2 or less) Weapon cannot wound

 

*caps when S reaches half of T or less

 

This way, stuff has to reach a lower strength value than in previous editions before it can’t wound but it also ends the silliness of an S3 weapon wounding a baneblade. 
 

I might also have a rule that if the weapon’s strength is 2 (or more) less than the T of the target it can only ever cause 1 damage instead of its usual damage amount. 

Edited January 29, 2023 by MARK0SIAN

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

17 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

A lasgun shouldn’t be capable of damaging a chimera let alone a Russ even.

 

I mean I have no problem with MMs having two shots.

they’re short range, which kinda offsets that and makes the melta rule hard to use. Now if the melta rule went away I wouldn’t complain about it.

 

I can find lots of lists running a bunch of MM doing well in tournaments, I'm having some trouble finding lasgun spam armies. I do agree from an immersion standpoint that lasguns shouldn't hurt knights but I really need to see this str 3 volume fire list that's dominating the meta. Most of the guard lists I can find that doing well are running minimum troops and Karskins occasionally you see some scions.... and a whole lot of plasma russes. 

 

17 hours ago, MegaVolt87 said:

OP is wrong in the sense of chip dmg as a good thing and that math to me just proves it. If I wiped all of your AT, first turn, we had a poor table with not enough terrain. If I wiped your AT, then yes I should be rewarded for that with you no longer having any sort of counter. It's getting a last few wounds off something like a knight with say lasguns that's bad and really stupid. It's no coincidence the last two editions have been infantry and Walker spam. Chip dmg from non AT guns is one of the problems with vehicles in 40k. 

 

 

That math is why people aren't spamming infantry. Look just find the game and link it for us where massed lasguns beat a knight army. I want to see it, because with that math, that guard player is going to be worth watching. I mean you need over 700 points of guard in double tap range to take down a knight in one turn. Knights have longer range and higher movement scoring is going to help the guard player cause the knight player can't just concede objectives, but whoever that mythical man is he outplayed someone big time. I've seen how horde orks and Nids win but its more of an objective based strategy, this would be something. I remember conscript spam so I know plenty of guard players have the minis so find the game. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

39 minutes ago, Jorin Helm-splitter said:

 

I can find lots of lists running a bunch of MM doing well in tournaments, I'm having some trouble finding lasgun spam armies. I do agree from an immersion standpoint that lasguns shouldn't hurt knights but I really need to see this str 3 volume fire list that's dominating the meta. Most of the guard lists I can find that doing well are running minimum troops and Karskins occasionally you see some scions.... and a whole lot of plasma russes. 

 

 

That math is why people aren't spamming infantry. Look just find the game and link it for us where massed lasguns beat a knight army. I want to see it, because with that math, that guard player is going to be worth watching. I mean you need over 700 points of guard in double tap range to take down a knight in one turn. Knights have longer range and higher movement scoring is going to help the guard player cause the knight player can't just concede objectives, but whoever that mythical man is he outplayed someone big time. I've seen how horde orks and Nids win but its more of an objective based strategy, this would be something. I remember conscript spam so I know plenty of guard players have the minis so find the game. 

Don’t strawman, it’s a sign you know you can’t win the debate as it’s being made.

no one said lasgun spam is dominating the meta, but the guard got a massive boost from HoTE/born soldiers. That one rule made the guard go from irrelevant to very much competitive.

 

there’s no excuse for a landraider on 1 or 2 final wounds after a turn of AT shooting failed to kill it, for lasguns or bolters or whatever to be able to finish that landraider off, even if it took 50 shots.

[jaxom]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

there’s no excuse for a landraider on 1 or 2 final wounds after a turn of AT shooting failed to kill it, for lasguns or bolters or whatever to be able to finish that landraider off, even if it took 50 shots.

Why?

[Evil Eye]

5 minutes ago, jaxom said:

Why?

Because a lasgun should not be able to as much as damage the paint on a Land Raider?

[Reskin]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Don’t strawman, it’s a sign you know you can’t win the debate as it’s being made.

no one said lasgun spam is dominating the meta, but the guard got a massive boost from HoTE/born soldiers. That one rule made the guard go from irrelevant to very much competitive.

 

there’s no excuse for a landraider on 1 or 2 final wounds after a turn of AT shooting failed to kill it, for lasguns or bolters or whatever to be able to finish that landraider off, even if it took 50 shots.

No I can’t agree with you, and it shows you missed the point in both the AP changing for 10th thread. And this one.

 

likely the OP also has missed the mark. 
 

the equation is variable, meaning, swap guard unit for drukhari troop choice, tyrannids troop choice,

 

swap the knight for any other high cost elite unit.

 

as the game stands right now, anyone strength of gun, can wound any toughness model, with any and all type of keywords.

 

and that’s ok, really it is. You don’t want to turn up to game and not be able to interact with you opponent. It’s terrible, I’ve had it several times. I turn up and place 2000pts of Grey Knights on the table, only to have them tau rail gunned off the table and I pack 2000pts back into the box after turn 1, turn 2 and call it a day.

 

my point, which some of you seem to miss is, much like some of the tyrannids weapons right now, with rule caveats such as unless the unit has keyword vehicle or monster, this wounds on a 2+
 

I mean the strength os already 7 on some of those things, but none the less.

 

that rule Can be taken and modified to applied a whole range of armies, guns, units.

 

a str3 lasgun, should only be able to wound vehicles on a 6 as it does. Not hits on a 6 and stuffing auto wounds.

 

that’s complete crap and you are negating the main defence for the knight. As the example is this case.

[jaxom]

 

 

20 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Because a lasgun should not be able to as much as damage the paint on a Land Raider?

 

On 1/25/2023 at 1:15 PM, Evil Eye said:

I definitely believe the "with opponent's permission only" caveat for super-heavies, mega-characters (the Primarchs, Abaddon, Swarmlord etc) and other "nuke buttons", and the appropriate balancing to compensate for the fact these units aren't going to be seeing every single game, would do a lot to help the health of the game. It'd also allow for a lot of more fun things (vehicle/monster/character design rules for instance) to make a triumphant return; AOS allows you to include your custom heroes in all three game modes but Matched Play requires opponents' permission, and a similar approach for 40K would mean people who just want to play cool, fluffy games whilst still having a bit of structure would be able to, whilst those that want a higher emphasis on balance would also be able to.

 

It'd also mean we could return to the (IMO more sensible/immersive) wounding system where you need a certain amount of punch to wound big targets, as people's ability to bring large amounts of unkillable death machines to every game and steamroll their opponents would be kneecapped, thus removing the frustration of "Your army of 9 Monoliths just disintegrated my last lascannon team, might as well forfeit" due to the lack of 9 Monolith armies.

 

From a lore perspective, sure, but we're dealing a game. The current GW core rules paradigm is, "People should be able to play to play with the miniatures they buy." and many of biggest rule changes and army organization changes since the end of 7th edition have revolved around it. If two units cannot interact with each other, then we're not talking about modern 40k. It's possible I misinterpreted the current thread conversation and we've moved beyond what is to what we want it to be. Overall, I am okay with the current rules (or like, 90% of them), but think ITC style faction mission secondaries are not healthy for balance and codexes need a massive one-go-through rebalancing.

[jaxom]

17 minutes ago, Reskin said:

a str3 lasgun, should only be able to wound vehicles on a 6 as it does. Not hits on a 6 and stuffing auto wounds.

Your comment went up while I was doing mine, but I think the thread needs clarity. I feel like there’re two or three different possible conversations of people talking past each other.

 

What exactly is the issue? That weapons are too powerful? Defenses too weak? An over reliance on special rules over stats that “make sense”? A problem with the core wounding mechanic?

[MARK0SIAN]

7 minutes ago, jaxom said:

What exactly is the issue? That weapons are too powerful? Defenses too weak? An over reliance on special rules over stats that “make sense”? A problem with the core wounding mechanic?

Yes 

[Karhedron]

On 1/27/2023 at 9:14 AM, Cleon said:

I really don't like the relatively recent (Eldar is the first time I noticed it) wave of 'on a six next roll passes' rules like in this discussion born soldiers. It feels innately unfair for some factions who pay and rely on toughness to have their defence bypassed (would have needed a 5 or 6) by the same rule that would also auto wound a weak model.

 

It has been around for all of 9th edition, Space Marine Infiltrators have the same rule. The difference is that while they are popular, they are too expensive to spam.

[Noserenda]

I think it bares pointing out that if a Land raider has lost all but one or two of its wounds it really shouldnt be lasgun proof, because of the several holes and rents those other wounding hits made ;) 

 

[DesuVult]

Using the setup of a cadian squad with Born Soldiers, 2 plasma guns, a drum fed autogun, and Take Aim! with a Castellan.  If the Cadians do not shoot the plasma guns at the knight and my math is right then they strip over 2.5 wounds off a knight on average.  That doesn't feel like an inconsequential amount for lasguns and that is one squad.  With bouncing orders it is not hard to get 3 squads under orders from one HQ.

 

That feels like an issue to me.  That isn't just finishing off a one wound knight but threatening to bracket a knight down from full with a couple squads of basic troops.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

6 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Don’t strawman, it’s a sign you know you can’t win the debate as it’s being made.

no one said lasgun spam is dominating the meta, but the guard got a massive boost from HoTE/born soldiers. That one rule made the guard go from irrelevant to very much competitive.

 

there’s no excuse for a landraider on 1 or 2 final wounds after a turn of AT shooting failed to kill it, for lasguns or bolters or whatever to be able to finish that landraider off, even if it took 50 shots.

 

How is that a strawman? Look if something is good enough this community has proven they'll run it. Chip damage isn't a viable strategy, it's worth a risk sometimes but that's it. Heck the only situation in which it's worth it does make some sense, because the AT weapons probably already have put some holes in that armor and caused some damage to critical parts. I get the lack of immersion, but I don't think you can make 40k immersive anymore with LoWs and Flyers that just don't fit, not to mention a FoC that makes skew lists easy.

 

Born Soldiers is an issue, but that's not a rule tied to lasguns it's tied to ranged attacks. I want those rules gone because most of the stuff that reskin has been brought up aren't limited to just lasguns and those combos aren't fun. To be clear I want combat doctrines, warlord traits, stratagems, re-rolls, and fraction secondary objectives gone as well. I would prefer if it went back to blood angels have furious charge, and that's it because honesty they felt more different back in fifth from my space wolves than they do now. 

 

 

[DesuVult]

Events aren't even all using the new IG rules yet.

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

This is a sort of interesting study on how raw data can mean several different things depending on perspective. Personally I read the numbers and don't see 12 squads to kill a knight, I see 4 squads to kill a third of a knight, + 1,750 points of army behind them, or 6 squads to kill half of a knight and still over 1,500 points of army behind them. And that isn't even their job, it's just something they can do on the side. Those are still 6 squads of screening, area eating, objective holding bodies who's guns can punch above their weight against 1 wound hoard units when there isn't a knight around to shoot at. 

 

I've read a few comments that mentioned how an all Knight army requires you take heavy anti tank to face them and not an all comers list, but this math doesn't support that. It says that you can take 60 ground pounders on top of your tanks and other tricks, and they'll still be able to kill a third of a knight for you. Were they having to pay for that I'd say there was an argument to be made, but they don't. It's free.

 

Everything can wound everything is a problem. At least in how it's currently implamented. 6+ to hit auto wounding is a mistake. Remove that and it gets better. But the strength vs toughness chart does probably need a look to encourage more tactical play. Doubly so with things like greater daemons losing any sort of reasonable save against small arms fire.

 

Maybe something like

T = more than twice S: no wound

T = twice S: 6+ to wound

T = more than S: 5+ to wound

T = S: 4+ to wound

T = less than S: 3+ to wound

T = half S: 2+ to wound

T = Less than Half S: auto wounds

 

Replace all the 6+ to hit auto wound rules with 6+ to hit adds +1 STR, and give armies with small arms fire ways to earn this. That puts T8 within reach of Lasguns for plinking but vastly reduces impact. If you want your desperate shots you can take them, but they'll be just that, desperate.

 

I'd also like to see ws comparisons for melee combat and some form of the initiative mechanic back though, as well as armor facing. Was never a fan of pie plates though.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

23 hours ago, jaxom said:

 

 

 

 

From a lore perspective, sure, but we're dealing a game. The current GW core rules paradigm is, "People should be able to play to play with the miniatures they buy." and many of biggest rule changes and army organization changes since the end of 7th edition have revolved around it. If two units cannot interact with each other, then we're not talking about modern 40k. It's possible I misinterpreted the current thread conversation and we've moved beyond what is to what we want it to be. Overall, I am okay with the current rules (or like, 90% of them), but think ITC style faction mission secondaries are not healthy for balance and codexes need a massive one-go-through rebalancing.

Ya see now you’re contradicting the OP while also disagreeing with me which is amazing.

 

if chip damage isn’t an issue because of how many shots it takes on average to cause significant damage to a T8+ model, then your argument has no standing.

 

if your argument has a leg to stand on then, it’s just as problematic as people like me have been saying it is.

 

19 hours ago, Jorin Helm-splitter said:

 

How is that a strawman? Look if something is good enough this community has proven they'll run it. Chip damage isn't a viable strategy, it's worth a risk sometimes but that's it. Heck the only situation in which it's worth it does make some sense, because the AT weapons probably already have put some holes in that armor and caused some damage to critical parts. I get the lack of immersion, but I don't think you can make 40k immersive anymore with LoWs and Flyers that just don't fit, not to mention a FoC that makes skew lists easy.

 

Born Soldiers is an issue, but that's not a rule tied to lasguns it's tied to ranged attacks. I want those rules gone because most of the stuff that reskin has been brought up aren't limited to just lasguns and those combos aren't fun. To be clear I want combat doctrines, warlord traits, stratagems, re-rolls, and fraction secondary objectives gone as well. I would prefer if it went back to blood angels have furious charge, and that's it because honesty they felt more different back in fifth from my space wolves than they do now. 

 

 

It’s a strawman because you’re trying to weaken the point by arguing against a case no one is trying to make.

 

 

23 hours ago, jaxom said:

Your comment went up while I was doing mine, but I think the thread needs clarity. I feel like there’re two or three different possible conversations of people talking past each other.

 

What exactly is the issue? That weapons are too powerful? Defenses too weak? An over reliance on special rules over stats that “make sense”? A problem with the core wounding mechanic?

All of the above

[Doctor Perils]

@Inquisitor_Lensoven

You know you can multi-quote by pressing the "+" button next to the "quote" button ;)

 

[MARK0SIAN]

6 hours ago, Marshal Valkenhayn said:

This is a sort of interesting study on how raw data can mean several different things depending on perspective. Personally I read the numbers and don't see 12 squads to kill a knight, I see 4 squads to kill a third of a knight, + 1,750 points of army behind them, or 6 squads to kill half of a knight and still over 1,500 points of army behind them. And that isn't even their job, it's just something they can do on the side. Those are still 6 squads of screening, area eating, objective holding bodies who's guns can punch above their weight against 1 wound hoard units when there isn't a knight around to shoot at. 

 

I've read a few comments that mentioned how an all Knight army requires you take heavy anti tank to face them and not an all comers list, but this math doesn't support that. It says that you can take 60 ground pounders on top of your tanks and other tricks, and they'll still be able to kill a third of a knight for you. Were they having to pay for that I'd say there was an argument to be made, but they don't. It's free.

 

Everything can wound everything is a problem. At least in how it's currently implamented. 6+ to hit auto wounding is a mistake. Remove that and it gets better. But the strength vs toughness chart does probably need a look to encourage more tactical play. Doubly so with things like greater daemons losing any sort of reasonable save against small arms fire.

 

Maybe something like

T = more than twice S: no wound

T = twice S: 6+ to wound

T = more than S: 5+ to wound

T = S: 4+ to wound

T = less than S: 3+ to wound

T = half S: 2+ to wound

T = Less than Half S: auto wounds

 

Replace all the 6+ to hit auto wound rules with 6+ to hit adds +1 STR, and give armies with small arms fire ways to earn this. That puts T8 within reach of Lasguns for plinking but vastly reduces impact. If you want your desperate shots you can take them, but they'll be just that, desperate.

 

I'd also like to see ws comparisons for melee combat and some form of the initiative mechanic back though, as well as armor facing. Was never a fan of pie plates though.

The problem I have with your proposed wound table is that it takes too long before anything is only wounding on 6s, it’s exactly like the current system. Once a weapon gets to S5 it’s basically never wounding anything in the game on worse than a 5 because that doubling of the toughness is impossible. I’d strongly argue that an S5 weapon should only be wounding a T9 target on a 6 but it won’t, it will be a 5+

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, MARK0SIAN said:

The problem I have with your proposed wound table is that it takes too long before anything is only wounding on 6s, it’s exactly like the current system. Once a weapon gets to S5 it’s basically never wounding anything in the game on worse than a 5 because that doubling of the toughness is impossible. I’d strongly argue that an S5 weapon should only be wounding a T9 target on a 6 but it won’t, it will be a 5+

Change the Toughness values. This thread has already entered into altering enough of 40k that it's a different system; go whole hog.